In 2019 the phrase “a world designed for men” saw print when the Brazilian-English activist Caroline Criado Perez put it into the subtitle of a book. Criado Perez may not have been the first to notice the pattern of extraordinary
Professor Heather Abraham’s new Article, Sheltering Discrimination: Fourth Amendment Challenges to Voucher Inspections, embodies the
In his famous 1957 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture at Harvard, the renowned British legal philosopher H. L. A. Hart presented a vision of law as a system of rules validated through institutional procedures and not dependent on moral merit for
Law has mostly dealt with unmarried couples by
In Sustaining Stare Decisis as a Post-Merits Determination, Peter Povilonis offers an insightful and novel analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s stare decisis jurisprudence. He characterizes stare decisis as a procedural doctrine that, in its proper form, is separate from
Earlier this year, Jimmy Lai, a pro-democracy advocate in Hong Kong and a critic of China, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted of colluding with foreign forces and publishing seditious material in violation of the Beijing-originated
For several decades now, a debate about whether or how to regulate cultural appropriation, especially of indigenous creations, has been brewing at the edges of American IP scholarship. This topic has, however, never really broken through—that is, it has never
Caught in Language. The importance of speech and language therapy for the Youth Justice System is the result of a PhD research project examining how juveniles with speech, language, and communication needs participate in the criminal justice system. The research’s
We have become inured to a world of surveillance so pervasive it would make the Stasi blush. Much of this infrastructure is built on our nominal consent in the guise of consumption choices. We carry around tracking and recording devices
It is not difficult to think of constitutional rules that are criticized, defended, or often both, on normative grounds that are more or less fact-free—not for what they actually are, but for what their critics or defenders believe they are
